ok lang sana if people just disagree.

but its worse -- accusations of a coverup, bribery, etc... alot of people are confused about multiple versions of facts, as well as the basis upon which the CA made its decision.

i think this is a teachable moment, to teach pinoys how the justice system works (or doesnt work).

but the MSM's blowing it...

hey, nakakalito ano?

where did you get these facts? "dead drunk" phrase -- the CA decision? pozon?

i think, correct me with the orig decisions, that daniel always said that she had access to her full mental capacity.

i didnt find dead drunk in the CA decision. it shouldn't be in the pozon decision also, but i have not read pozon.

"She wrote about Superman being a hero. Superman, she said, was faster than a speeding bullet, and all that but not a leader...."

this was also in SUPERMAN 4, the quest for peace... i don't think anyone thinks this movie is cannon.. :) . ahahaha...

but basically, supes says i can' solve the nuclear proliferation problem. people should do it.

thanks for taking my words seriously. i use smile icons if i'm being facetious...

alot of that was reyna elenas position...

my own position is: (copying my reply about)

if bloggers want to be an opinion setter/opinion maker, then they should not hide in behind pen names, and tell people who they are, be open to criticism, admit when ur wrong, etc...

that is, IF they want to be an opinion maker, ex mlq3, or any columnist. BUT if they just want to write about political issues and don't really care if they influence people or not, then they don't have to (ex. benign0, me, armchair pundits everywhere, etc).

so bert, when you say: "... would you want me to ask what your real name is? What the heck for? Isn't it enough that GabbyD thinks Bert's a fool?"

the reason why NON-anonymity is fine is because, we are just discussing an issue, and we are NOT assuming/implying that we are:

1)speaking for others (the filipino in general, for example), just ourselves
2) trying to be an opinion maker, influence others (into, example, thinking BERT is a fool...)

in other words, nag-uusap lang tayo. discussions about. sharing of opinions...

the internet is great for sharing. but once you want to do more than share, then you have to, uhm, SHARE your background.

well, alot of that was my reading of reynaelena's view.

my own view is that for the FV bloggers who want to be an opinion setter/opinion maker, then they should not hide in behind pen names, and tell people who they are.

that is, IF they want to be an opinion maker, ex mlq3, or any columnist. BUT if they just want to write about political issues and don't really care if they influence people or not, then they don't have to (ex. benign0, me, armchair pundits everywhere, etc).

in general, if we want to actively change the world around us, change opinions, etc, we have to tell people who we are, and open ourselves up to criticism as well...

so, the will shakespeare example isn't apt here, i think.

but speaking of shakespeare, correct me if i am wrong, but at the time he was alive, he was considered low brow entertainment. its only later when scholars started criticizing his work, did shakespeare become cannonical, high-brow english writing...

anyway, i'm glad you raised this point. it makes everyone see how decisions are penned.

that judges write a THEORY to justify their findings of acquit or not. they acquit or not based on an standard of evidence, which in turn based on the presumption of innocence. bottom line: that evidence had better be good, airtight, cover all complaints, before the court convicts.

as i said to Abe, we can disagree about the evidence standard as regards rape. it may be too high a standard, but i don't have an opinion yet either way...

and then the judges write down the theory. the problem with pundits and the media, is that they FOCUS on the THEORY.

But thats putting the cart before the horse!

the only reason they wrote those things, is coz of their appreciation of the evidence based on the standard of presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt.

so ric, i'm focusing on the inquirer article, specifically the quote:

" “ All these taken into account, the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged. He admitted...."

so i agree, we should understand how these decisions are written. decisions are funny and strange documents. here is the structure:

the judge looks at the evidence. this is the "All these taken into account", and in the inq.net article, this is the bullet point list of stuff...

the link is here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/vi...

next, the judge says: according to the standard of evidence i must follow, to "All these" lead to " ...the court is morally convinced that accused Corporal Daniel Smith committed the crime charged."? the answer was yes.

the next sentence is interesting...

not only do courts answer the "is this evidence enough to establish doubt", but they ALSO come up with an alternate story, a theory if you will, of what really happened...

this part is confusing, and i wish they wouldnt do it. but fact is, this is how decisions are written.

so WHAT is pozon's theory: Daniel was wrong (lying), he knew she was unconsious, admitted to it, etc... this is the "HE ADMITTED" part

what is KEY is this is pozon's THEORY of what happened, based on his finding that the "ALL THESE" evidence was enough...

this is EXACTLY what happened with the CA as well. SAME STRUCTURE: they look at the evidence. they say, "ALL THESE" facts are not enough to convict, and THEN tell people about a THEORY of what happened.

this theory is what Abe is writing about in this post -- let me summarize: that it was a romantic engagement gone wrong, she felt wronged after the quickie sex, etc etc....

the stuff that Abe was writing about is NOT EVIDENCE. it is the judges' appreciation of that evidence, which reflects the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE assumption.

i commented to Abe exactly that earlier on this post. my understanding of his response is that he basically only said that he disagreed with the CA justices THEORY on what happened...

the key to understanding this ric is the phrase "All these taken into account".

what is 'these' (plural) that was taken into account? why plural? this means several facts were used to infer that smith "committed the crime..."

so daniel didn't admit her unconsciousness. the court believed that 'these' were enough to infer it.

interesting, you say: " Or do they hide behind their anonymity and insignificance, hoping that no one will ever find out what they really are and what they do in real life so that they can never be publicly criticized and never feel what it’s like to be at the other end of the whiplash?"

so this post is really against the concept of anonymity, and IF you criticize, you should tell people who you really are and what your background is.

this is EXACTLY what reynaelena is saying. IF you want to comment/criticize (be a pundit), you have to put your true self out there.

my personal view is similar: if you want to be taken seriously, THEN you should tell people who you are, etc...

if you insist on hiding in anonymity, then theres no reason to take you seriously.

is this you in the first pic?